Search

Meta

You’ve heard about how they’re banning violent pornography now, right? Well, not even just violent porn as such; “extreme” porn. It’s just aimed as S&M, but it’s so ridiculously broad that it can really apply to anything.
Not that it’d be more defensible if it were specific, of course.

802. The Government believes that these clauses constitute an interference with Convention rights under Articles 8 and 10 but that for the reasons set out below this is justified as being in accordance with the law, and necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of crime, for the protection of morals and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

I’ll repeat that, in case you missed it.

The Government believes that these clauses constitute an interference with Convention rights under Articles 8 and 10 but

Said Convention is the European Convention on Human Rights.
Once again.

The Government believes that these clauses constitute an interference with Convention rights

They know it violates human rights, and they passed it anyway.
Because porn… is icky (“The material to be covered by this new offence is at the most extreme end of the spectrum of pornographic material which is likely to be thought abhorrent by most people.”).

The Government believes that these clauses constitute an interference with Convention rights

This isn’t fucking Belarus. This is the UK, a country that was once half a millenium ahead of the rest of the world when it came to human rights and freedom.

The Government believes that these clauses constitute an interference with Convention rights